Printable View
Ah, darn, do not bring Profesor Fraud into the fray! I have little or no time for his Hellenization of our libidoes. You should read some of Nabokov's rants on Freud-they are hilarious.Quote:
Sigmund Freud made a critic about Shakespeare: The greatest english author was not so original because a lot of things he wrote were already known in some greek myths.
If anyone got children reading - most likely seven books at most, and little else - then it's the marketing Bloomsbury has put behind Rowling rather than Rowling herself.
I have posted at the first page of this thread a translated version of Indios (Renato Russo's song). Now, I found a better thing on youtube.com
Legiao Urbana live:
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4
Every person here can see and analisys if he is a poor punk singer or a great singer and poet.
Machado had a historical context.
Vinicius de Moraes had other historical context.
Renato Russo (leader of the Legiao Urbana) had other historical context.
Take this in consideration.
A lot of fans (millions, in fact) consider Russo as the greatest poet
of the 80's generation.
But also important, at the same context, were Raul Seixas (70's) and Cazuza.
There is a few english versions of songs by Raul Seixas.
There is a movie about Cazuza's life.
Everyone can research in internet if wants to know more about.
English version of "Trem das Onze"
Raul Seixas (Salvador-Bahia, 1945 — São Paulo-SP, 1989), was pop singer known as the prophet of the Apocalypse, but he didn't like this stereotype.
Also known for his anarchyst ideas. When Brazil was a ditator state, he was exiled. His musical style is a mix of rock and roll and folk music from Bahia.
This song here in particular is a kind of folk Brazilian music from the country.
Morging Train, sung by Raul Seixas (2:37 min):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH9y9AvWlfU
The original version (portuguese) makes a methaphora.
It appears talking about the death
(train meaning death and travel meaning the jouney to heaven, hell or Hades)
So he sings:
"Don't need to carry valise (bagage) in the train
....who's gonna cry... and who is gonna stay?"
Ideologia (Ideology) by Cazuza (with english subtitles):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMHsBvVJdHE
Amazing video! It talks about all ideologies and the necessity to know what is the one that he (the poet) is looking for. But he doesn't know which one he must follow.
He was already infected by de HIV when he sung this song. That's why he sings:
"Now, my pleasure (sex) is life risk".
Obs: when he sings party (it is political party), power (it means political power), my dreams had gonna "sold" (not sole). The translation in this video is terrible, but the video is incredible, amazing art! Enjoy it!
Details about: Cazuza was considered a rebel poet and singer.
He sang Bossa Nova, Samba, Blues, Rock, etc.
A kind of Rimbaud of our times.
I don't need to post here links to Tom Jobim, Chico Buarque, Gilbero Gil, Caetano Veloso, Marisa Monte, Vinícius de Moraes, Ivan Lins, etc... cause everybody already know that.
If you still don't know, be shame yourself! I reccomend imediately!
:)
For who likes erudit music, I recommend:
Heitor Villa-Lobos, modernist Brazilian composer.
Search for the amazing "Tremzinho Caipira" (hillbilly train) and
"As Bachianas Brasileiras" prepare yourself!
"O Guarani" by the Brazilian composer Carlos Gomes.
Shakespeare was very original, but originality is not the creation of plots. Originality is how the story is told and Shakespeare, alone, created stories that basically replaceded in the western mind the archetypes that are supplied by the greek mythology. One man that is worth the entire culture developed by centuries and being this culture the most amazing culture of western world? That is because the quality of his text, the complexity. That is what give Shakespeare importance and keep him in our mind. Popularity (relative, Shakespeare was a popular theatre writer, not a popular writer since a dramaturgist was considered a second, if not third rate writer).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
Today, there are a excess of idealism of the past when somebody says "Shakespeare was awesome and Coelho is awful". I am not saying Coelho is great, but he's as popular today as Shakespeare was and still is.
I don't apreciate Coelho, but I must respect the million of people who does. He is the most famous brazilian writer today. [/quote]
I do not understand you. You ask to leave Coelho out but you keep bringing him up. Anyways, Hitler was popular also. During the story of mankind several artists are popular during their lifetime while great genius lived under their shadow. Jorge Luis Borges only got famous in the 60's, Kafka decades after his dead, Emily Dickinson barely published while she was alive. Popularity is meanignless, a time lapse, an accident of fashion. Being popular does not say anything about quality. Democracy is an awful method to measure merit.
Coelho is the most famous brazilian writer today when our writing culture have been dragged down and it is nowhere as stunning as during the Modernists period. And even if you think, Shakespeare wrote 500 years ago and I doubt people can reckon plots of Coelho as they can reckon characters of Shakespeare even without reading him. Not to mention the fact he is the writer that originated more movies, more songs, more paintings, etc. Influence is the only kind of "popularity" worth and two decades after Coelho his influence have been nill.
I do not know if I praise god because the idea that a writer wrote something that is equallly valuable for all the world's population is so outrageous that I think I would kill such man.Quote:
Machado de Assis is great, the best, but most of people in the world don't know him. Yes, that's the truth, we must accept: Machado's texts is not for the majority of the world population.
But What make Machado no for the world population?? I understood and read him when I was 11. Are you telling me that the world is that uneducated and imbecile??
That is outrageous. Ridiculous! Bollocks.Quote:
If we depends of Machado, the Brazilian literature would be forgotten. That's why I respect Coelho, he is Brazilian and he sells a lot of books. I don't like him, but it is irrelevant, million of people does.
Machado de Assis , founder the academy that Paulo Coelho fought to be accepted, wrote 100 years ago and still remembered. Wait until Paulo Coelho manages to be remembered being dead for so long to claim such non sense. And I doubt he will, because what make a text be remembered is the quality and this is something Machado will always have and Coelho will always lack.
Do you think Coelho is the first best-seller success in the world? Where is Losang Rampa? Where is even Sidney Sheldon? Where was all the nobodies that sold much more books than Joyce or Faulkner?? They are forgotten.
And, if Coelho didn't sold as much, they would find someone else to do so. It is a marketing principle. Explore the public. But finding someone as good as Machado. You must be joking.
After she trying to sue someone for authoral rights when she didn't had a single original idea while Writing Harry Potter I would be ashamed about her. Just a ganancious twit. As being proud of Coelho, I would be proud of something worthless such as Machado de Assis. Or Rui Barbosa. Or Santos Dummont. Or Vital Brasil. Or all the great brazilians who actually showed a genius beyond everyone else and not just to be market success. Xuxa is more popular than him. Be proud about her.Quote:
If a was english, I would be proud of J.K.Roling. I don't care if somebody says it is a poor literature. Million of children are reading Harry Potter, that's important. The same I say about Coelho controversy. I am proud, cause he sell a lot of books and he is brazilian.
Such is life. Pele is not a racist. I dunno if he is an awful person. But he is actually the best footballer ever. He wasnt just popular.Quote:
Some brazilians says "Pelé is a awful person, racist, and etc..." But I'm proud of Pelé cause he is the best football player in history and he is brazilian. People always seach defects.
I am not an old professor and I will say: The reason they say that is because Vinicius, who is one of the best poets ever and Chico Buarque are head, shoulders, chest, crotch, feet and shadow about those 3 walking cliches. A shame is to compare the prentencious and hipocrites Cazuza and Renato Russo to them. Raul Seixas was at least honest in his hippie life.Quote:
In Brazil, the traditional professors (the old ones) always say good things about Vinicius de Moraes, Chico Buarque, etc... But Raul Seixas, Renato Russo, Cazuza... are poor poets. What a shame say that!
He was not a poet. Writing lyrics for music may demand poetic language, but a poet is the one who writes poetry. I prefer the humble and most acceptable opinion of a real Poet that also wrote music, Leonard Cohen that the difference between the two works are enough.Quote:
I am portuguese teacher and literature student and I'm also musician. I usually listen to italian opera (and I understand the italian words), Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven... and I love it. I love Bossa Nova and Brazilian popular music too. And also I love rock and roll, jazz, blues, salsa, tango, bolero, tarantella, arabic music... I don't have any prejudice about art.
Renato Russo, for example, had a potent voice. His composition are full of simplicity, but beaufiful. The words of his songs made him a poet and a hero for a entire generation.
The one not taking it the context in consideration is you. Chico Buarque wrote during the militar dictadorship. Cazuza and Russo wrote protest musics during the democracy that they didn't helped to created. They are pop artists, playing for future MTV (which is one of the most banal things ever created by humankind) and while attacking the system, they are more than help to bend over for Globo and be the main theme of globo's sop operas. They had no spirit and their lyrics - which are basically portuguese versions of the english's punk in the 70's - are all false.Quote:
So, when someone says "Chico Buarque is great and Renato Russo is nothing" I must be angry. Vinicius de Moraes, Chico, Caetano were importants to a past generation, but Cazuza, Renato Russo and Raul Seixas were importants to the new generation. The historical context is totally different and some people don't take this in consideration.
It have nothing to do with who was in the past one or the recent one, but who was good enough or not. I am not a fan of Chico music, but the guy had a domain of language, symbolism and rythim that Renato Russo could only dream about.
He just wrote music for pop music. He wrote for Globo's characters. He didn't even realized what was happening in brazil while repeating the 70's jargons of Punk movement. Plus, I prefer the expression of surprise of Mallarme when a song offered as homage to sing one version of Mallarme poem. Mallarme just answered "But it was already musical". Transforming Camoes, above all, in music! Camoes already did it.Quote:
Shakespeare translated the ancient myth to his own time and context.
Renato Russo translated the angry, the sadness, the fears, and the love of the youth to his own context. Renato Russo made a song composition uppon Camõe's sonnet. It is wonderful!
No, this is just good sense. There is 7000 years of literature. It is only natural that in 7000 years we are going to find more examples of good literature than the short space of today. Plus, chronology have nothing to do with quality. Right now there may be a great writer. But I doubt there is any as good as Dante. But when Dante was alive, he could say the best writer ever was alive and not in the past (and he almost didn't, amazing).Quote:
Russo's song words have paradox, antithesis, synizesis, etc. He's a person who does art. Every human art has something to present, something important.
People always idealize the past as perfect: "The past language was beautiful, the way they spoke at the past was better, the past books was awesome, the past singers were wonderfull..." Yes, I agree but not only the past, our present too. We have good things today. Some people just apreciate the conteporanean literature when it seems like the past literature. This is excess of tradicionalism and past idealism.
Too bad. Stop studing literature as you claim because study of literature is the pratice of literary critic (Or you are just reading ,not studying). Stop writing those long analyses, because they are the pratice of literary critic. Also stop lacking respect for guys who spent their entire life studing with depth and passion one objetc they loved. Also, do not ever read Borges, which transformed literary criticism a new form of art. Also, avoid a list of great writers, all of them dedicated to literary criticism.Quote:
Also, I'd like to say: I don't belive in literary critics.
Literature is not only art. But creative is not subjective, if it is not created new, it is not creative. What is original it is not subjective either.Quote:
Literature is art, right? So, how can someone define what is beautiful, what is creative, what is ugly, what is original...? This is subjective, so, it depend, it comes from the personal taste.
What is beautiful or ugly is subjetive, but this is art appreciation. Qualification is something else, it is telling if something really achived the capacity to be beautifull while using the standards and techniques the work proposed. It is not as subjective.
That is new. Some philosophies are not even objective to be able to propose a model of objetive analyse.Quote:
A totally different thing is: a philosophical critics.
Philosophy is not art, so when a philosopher analasys a phylosophical work that kind of critic is objective.
Considerable more than Philosophy because all artist use techniques. You can make technical analyses about every art work (not to mention the history of art) and those are objetive.Quote:
The same thing we can say about the science. The scientifical critic about a scientific work is "objective" (actually it trys to be). But the literature (art) can not be as objective as phylosophy or science.
I am sorry, but it is not a matter of taste what is good art or not. Just what you like or not.
Marx was an awful literary critic and so are Freud because they did exactly that. There is advice, listen to many critics, not just two, because if 100 critics agree about something and for similar reasons, something must be true there. And 100 critics in different contexts, so you will know they do not share the same ideology and they do not have the same personal formation.Quote:
So, based also in Marx and Freud I say: everything we say about literature is our personal taste, influenciated by the ideology and the personal formation.
That is why Shakespeare is Shakespeare, there 300 years that he is acclaimed by a variety of individuals that anyone claiming it is a matter of personal taste, is not using their brain cells.
Easy, be cool my friend! I'm not bringing P.Coe... back. He was just an example.
But Hitler was popular by force (ditatorial power) and the writer P.Coe... was popular by selling books. No one put a gun in the head of somebody to buy a book written by P. Coe. Very different, don't you think.
I don't know why, but the fact is: Machado is not so popular as Coe...
Unfortunately! I think both deserve to be popular. Machado is very good writer. The other one is maybe different, I don't know. Carismatic? Perhaps.
But the fact is: he sold a lot!
Losang Rampa and Sidney Sheldon are not Brazilians. Tell me a Brazilian best-seller? I know one.
At the time of Shakespeare, people shout at the central plaza calling to the show. Today we have advertising. What is the difference? "Marketing" is conteporanean factor. It does not make a writer good or bad, at all.
Lyric poetry at the beggining (Greece) was made for singing, not read. Also the minstrel and trobadours in Middle Age were singers. So, I consider all words into a song as poetry.
Don't make me laugh. Vinicius and Chico were also in mass-media at their times. If they were popular at the 90's, they were also in MTV. Just matter of historical context. Stop thinkig they are messiahs send by god to save the Brazilians of the ditator state.
Cesaria Evora had a video in MTV. Is she a poor singer?
For Dante (who lived in Middle Age) the best writer was Virgilio (from the old Roman Empire)
To analyse a poem is totally different of making critics, specially the way you make critics.
To analyse is:
See graphic structure: how the poem is presented
See phonetic structure: rhythmic, enjabement, alliteration, etc
See semantic structure: style, figures of language, etc
You did not make a analysis. You're only saying "this is bad and this is good"
Again: "Beauty or ugly", "good or bad" is just a matter of personal taste. If you don't like, talk about other thing, something you like. Let me talking about what I like. Any debate about this topic will take the eternety. I'm not here for this purpose.
Now you has shown me that you don't even know what you're talking about.
You've said Marx was a literary critic?
Never, my friend! Marx was a scientific critic (history and sociology). I know his work. His conception of "ideology" was in my work of my first graduation.
I am going to explain what a said:
"based on Marx (who describe the mechanism of the ideology) I can say that all literary critic (not analysis) is based on personal taste (personal taste comes from the ideology and also from other factors).
"based on Freud I can say that all personal taste comes from the personal formation (and other factors, like the ideology as well).
Don't even think comparing philosophical and scientific analysis with literary analysis. Totally different things. Do not mix art with science. Art is subjective itself, science try to be objective.
Again, good or bad art is too subjective, just a matter of taste.
You just search for objective reasons to justify your personal taste. This is just a game of words, there is nothing scientific, logic or exact to prove what you are saying. Try to read about logical mechanisms and you'll understand.
I , personally, think Tonico and Tinoco, L. Gonzaga, Alceu Valença, etc...were great poets of the Brazilian folk song. Maybe you say "their grammar was terrible, this is not poetry and they were caipiras (hillbilies) from the country".
But when Machado invented new words or committed an "error" you say "he did a poetic license".
So, If you dislike my future post, please try to ignore. Talk about what you apreciate. I will post more about Russo, Cazuza, etc. Ignore my post and let foreign people know more about it and let them take their own view.
Legiao Urbana live:
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4
Ideologia (Ideology) by Cazuza (with english subtitles):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMHsBvVJdHE
Morging Train, sung by Raul Seixas (2:37 min):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH9y9AvWlfU
Obs: Coelho and Seixas wrote a lot of songs together.
For more details about Russo, Cazuza and Seixas, see the posts before (#35 and # 36) in this very thread.
Hitler was not popular by force. He was popular by finding an idea and writing a book to represent it, using even democratic ways to make his party powerful and due to incridible charisma. They used very similar strategies - until today the raise of Nazi party is studied in Propaganda, Marketing and all as example of how selling an idea and applied in the mass media market... where is how popularity is won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
So? Until the XVIII Century there wasn't even a mass editorial market, a Writer was remembered due hiw quality. Virgil, Homer, Horace, Dante, etc didnt sell a lot. A lot of bad writers did and which one is meant to be remembered? Really, how many other writers from Dante's period do you remmeber?Quote:
I don't know why, but the fact is: Machado is not so popular as Coe...
Unfortunately! I think both deserve to be popular. Machado is very good writer. The other one is maybe different, I don't know. Carismatic? Perhaps.
But the fact is: he sold a lot!
Err, Paulo Coelho selling lot is world wide phenomen, very few writers in the world sell as good as him. But he sells less than Mao Tsé, should we praise him for that? As I said, I would rather not sell a million like Paulo Coelho and write a story as great as The Alienist.Quote:
Losang Rampa and Sidney Sheldon are not Brazilians. Tell me a Brazilian best-seller? I know one.
So, why you keep saying "he sells book" which is a marketing phenomem?Quote:
At the time of Shakespeare, people screen at the central plaza calling to the show. Today we have advertising. What is the difference? "Marketing" is conteporanean factor. It does not make a writer good or bad, at all.
Also, as I said, Shakespeare was a popular theatre creator. He didn't even published his texts. He was not a popular writer.
Epic poetry also, all poetry was made to be sung at begining. And surprise, they stopped to be songs to be texts - Poetry is Not Music. They are two different things.Quote:
Lyric poetry at the beggining (Greece) was made for singing, not read. Also the minstrel and trobadours in Middle Age were singers. So, I consider all words into a song as poetry.
Vinicius mass media ??? What are you talking about ? There was not even popular TV channels here when he started. He and most of the Bossa Nova group had to left brazil to make sucess and only in the 60's when he returned. Typical brazilian stuff, first out then inside. You like this. If Vinicius was absorved by The Mass Media (Globo mostly) it was because his past, unlike the sold out of the 80's.Quote:
Don't make me laugh. Vinicius and Chico were also in mass-media at their times. If they were popular at the 90's, they were also in MTV. Just matter of historical context. Stop thinkig they are messiahs send by god to save the Brazilians of the ditator state.
To finish, Vinicius themes are not rebelion against system - It was love, joy, beauty - He was a conservador. His discuss was not empty like pseudo-punks in the 80's.
Chico was something special, when he started he was persecuted for daring to play in the festivals. He was an intelectual family and again, his attack was against the governament.
Virgil was the best writer before him. Dante goes to Heaven, Virgil never.Quote:
For Dante (who lived in Middle Age) the best writer was Virgilio (from the old Roman Empire)
That is one of the atributions of a critic.Quote:
To analyse a poem is totally different of making critics. Specially the way you make critics. To analyse is:
See graphic structure: how the poem is presented
See phonetic structure: rhythmic, enjabement, alliteration, etc
See semantic structure: style, figures of language, etc
I did not made an analyse of what?Quote:
You did not make a analysis. You're only saying "this is bad and this is good"
Dude, that is the bad about Paulo Coelho. Life is made of bad and good. We must deal with everything. And only because I dislike and disagree with you, this does not mean they affect my life or that I can not make critics about them.Quote:
Again: "Beauty or ugly", "good or bad" is just a matter of personal taste. If you don't like, talk about other thing, something you like. Let me talking about what I like. Any debate about this topic will take the eternety. I'm not here for this propose.
Marx and Hengels published a book with critics about art and literature. I do not think someone can be only one thing, if they sit in a table, analysed the history of art and literature (even the aesthetics) from the social point of view, I can call them literary critics because that is what matter here.Quote:
Now you has shown me that you don't even know what you're talking about.
You said Marx was a literary critic?
Never, my friend! Marx was a scientific critic (history and sociology). I know his work. His conception of "ideology" was in my work of my first graduation.
Marx and Freud are extremelly biased individuals. Their ideologies dominated their live and conclusions. As I said, they are guilty exactly of that.Quote:
I am going to explain what a said:
"based on Marx (who describe the mechanism of the ideology) I can say that all literary critic (not analysis) is based on personal taste (personal taste comes from the ideology and also from other factors).
"based on Freud I can say that all personal taste comes from the personal formation (and other factors, like the ideology as well).
But you seem to miss that I said: Everyone, included scientists, act like that. Not only literary critics. When you can trust literary criticism? When you search for more sources. Coleridge in the XIX and Borges in XX century share several conclusiion and views about literature and art despite having not the same ideology, formation, personal tastes. What you do to not fail in the opiniona makers? Seek more than one source, the knowledge that is shared among many can be more trusted. Go beyond Freud and Marx.
Art criticism is not art, Art is the studied object and Science can study subjetive objects as well.Quote:
Don't even think comparing philosophical and scientific analysis with literary analysis. Totally different things. Do not mix art with science. Art is subjective itself, science try to be objective.
Philosophy is not always objective and they all depend in a leap of faith. Philosophy analyse is filled by "I think this is better because it is what I believe". Almost or even more than art.
No sense. Good art is the one where you can analyse the use of techinique, the domain of skills. Bad art is the one where it is pauper. You are trying to prove yourself wrong despite hundred of years of art study pointing you that what good art is not a matter of taste.Quote:
Again, good or bad art is too subjective, just a matter of taste.
Dude, you use Freud and Marx. They are master of manipulating the conclusion to show up what they want. I do not think you are able to pinpoint when logic is being used.Quote:
You just search for objective reasons to justify your personal taste. This is just a game of words, there is nothing scientific, logic or exact to prove what you are saying. Try to read about logical mechanisms and you'll understand.
For example, they are not poets. But Tonico and Tinoco language was suited for the production they are using. I would not criticise them by using a perfect language or not.Quote:
I , personally, think Tonico and Tinoco, L. Gonzaga, Alceu Valença, etc...were great poets of the Brazilian folk song. Maybe you say "their grammar was terrible, this is not poetry and they were "caipiras" (hillbilies). But when Machado invented new words or commited an "error" you say "he did a poetic license".
This is not your blog. This is a forum. People discuss with each other - And if you can claim anything you want, you better be read to listen what you do not want, Dr.Pangloss.Quote:
So, If you dislike my future post, please try to ignore. Talk about what you apreciate. I will post more about Russo, Cazuza, etc. Ignore my post and let foreign people know more about and let them take their own view.
I am also brazilian, however i live in the UK. Unfortunately i only have one brazilian book at home called "Cazuza"
Analyse this:
Legiao Urbana live:
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4
Also, analyses the narration in "Faroeste Caboclo" and "Eduardo e Mônica". Describe the characters.
Ideologia (Ideology) by Cazuza (with english subtitles):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMHsBvVJdHE
Analyse also the words of "Exagerado" and "Faz Parte do Meu Show" and "Codinome Beija-Flor", if you like love songs.
Morning Train, sung by Raul Seixas (2:37 min):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH9y9AvWlfU
Obs: Coelho and Seixas wrote a lot of songs together.
For more details about Russo, Cazuza and Seixas, see the posts (#35 and # 36) in this very thread.
I respect Jorge Amado, he is among the greats. But I don't apreciate him.
He's very pornographic. About this kind of reading, I prefer Nelson Rodrigues, but also I'm not very fan.
The best reading for me are political, philosophical, historical, sociological, and linguistic... I read a lot about other cultures, religions, as well.
So, in literature readings I seach for thouse kind of subjects. That's why I like the Divine Comedy, Odissey, Lusiadas...
About Brazilian literature, in my oppinion, Ariano Suassuna and João Cabral de Melo Neto were the best writers uppon the Brazilian northeast view.
And I apreciate very much "Literatura de Cordel". But some people may say "it's poor literature" cause the grammar is awful.
And I apreciate Gilberto Gil, but some people may say "it's not literature" cause it's sung, not read. However, the hymn, the ode, the rondo, the song and cantiga were considered literature at their times.
But some people may say "Gilberto Gil is a poor poet", cause he has an acoustic show recorded in MTV.
The latin culture is very rich in traditional forms of poems indeed.
Francesco Petrarca (who developped the sonnet form is just one example).
The spanish, italian and portuguese literatures are rich in greek-latin inheritance. That is intrinsic in the language and inside the cultures of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile...
The english language has a very simple structure, a very very simple grammar. Compare the english grammar and the portuguese grammar, for example (I'm not saying english is a poor language). Portuguese grammar is very complex.
I speak also italian, spanish, and french fluently, but with some
vocabularies limitations when I speak and a few grammar errors when I write cause I'm not native.
And I speak some basic sentences in
german, japanese, chinese mandarin, arabic and russian but I can't write.
I know what I'm talking about. You can research or ask any linguistic:
About Western languages
Latin languages are more complex than the others.
German is the most difficult language, (for me, personaly).
English is the easiest language to learn and the most simple grammar.
Eastern languages (All of them are complex)
Japanese is very complex but easy to learn. It's totally differet of any western language.
Chinese mandarin grammar is very easy, but the phonetic is very complex
(there is subtle variations of high and low pitch)
Russian and arabic are complex too, each one on their own context.
Since the begining, the italians, spanish and portuguese people had their traditions base at greeks, romans and others. Anglo-germanics nations had influence from greek-latin too, but not so strong as romance language's speakers.
So, Portugal had a strong influence from the ancient greek-roman traditions. In addition, portuguese (people and language) had the
arabic influence for 350 years at Iberian peninsula.
Brazil (as Portugal's cologne) had a strong traditional greek-latin culture and arabic influence as well. In addition, Brazil have much more: the greatest native indian population in the globe, the african contribution and the immigrant culture (italians, germans, japaneses, leabanese...).
São Paulo, for example, has the biggest japanese population outside the Japan, in the world.
Imagine this caldron of cultures!
That's the beauty of Brazilian arts like music, dance, literature, architeture
(the city of Brasilia, for example), gastronomy, martial arts (Capoeira), etc.
A curious thing: there's no violence motivated by religion and different creeds.
The violence in Brazil is a social problem, not so different from many other countries.
So, Brazilians have one of the greatest ethinical and cultural diversity in the globe. The Literature from Brazil is as rich as its people.
obs: I'm saying that friendly, I'm not trying to be arrogant.
I apreciate all kinds of culture (erudit or popular, of all times):
since the ancient Chineseses and Indians legends until the modern Hollywwod movies form US, and Bollywood movies from India);
since the Arabic tales ultil Machado de Assis' tales and novels;
since Greeks and Roman epics and dramas until Shakespeare's;
since Italian Opera, british rock and Brazilian Bossa Nova until conteporanean Brazilian singers: Djavan, Legião Urbana (group), Cazuza, Raul Seixas,
Zé Ramalho, Alceu Valença, Olodum, Ivan Lins...
Since the Beatles ultil the egyptian singer Amr Diab;
I love them all, in resume, I apreciate the cultures from all times and all
nations, without prejudice, and I consider myself as a cosmopolitan.
For everyone in São Paulo or who goes to São Paulo:
Visit the Portuguese Language Museum, at the Luz Station.
To Know more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_...guese_Language
(in english)